Japanese news service lends support to Olympus OM rumors

Kyodo News International, a Japanese news service, is reporting that Olympus will introduce a 16MP camera based on its classic OM series. The news would tie-in with a recent Olympus press advert in the UK that highlighted the letters 'O' and 'M' in the text. The report suggests such a camera would sell for over ¥100,000 (around $1300) and feature 'high-speed autofocus and image stabilization functionality.' Meanwhile, Japanese financial newspaper Nikkei is reporting that Sony is considering investing in Olympus and forming a business alliance. Fujifilm which, like Olympus, has extensive medical interests is also rumored to be interested.

Olympus' fondly-remembered OM-4 SLR

The company's share price has risen since Friday's announcement that the Tokyo Stock Exchange has taken it off its supervisory watchlist. The TSE fined the company ¥10m ($130,000) for violation of disclosure rules in such a way that it 'damaged shareholder and investor confidence' in the stock exchange. The company's share remain on the TSE 'alert' list.

I think we are entering a new age where lens need to match with capable sensors. When FF sensor go above 35 MP we need best prime lens to deliever what the sensor can offer. During film age Olympus offer mostly prime lenses which is still selling on ebay at high price.It does make business sense for Olympus to offer some of their great lense with a few update, like Zeiss did with their prime lense for 35mm. Making some of the lens surfaces aspereical, and match with a OM-4 like camera with FF sensor-shift 24MP sensor. People do not mind manual focus if IQ count the most, just like people still use Zeiss or the Leica R lenses. Even using old OM mount is still fine as it adapt quit well to Canon. Only a few contactas needed for focal length info needed for sensor shift...OM size FF body with 24MP sensor (with promise a future 36MP upgrade) launch with 21mm f2 Asp, 24mm f2.8 Asp. 28mm f2 asp, 50mm f1.2 asp, 50 f2 Marco, 90mm f2 Marco Asp... Most of the tooling they already have.

What kind of fate was that? Minolta found someone with the economy not only to do something with the Minolta legacy and patents - but to purchase it from them, so they could focus on markets which gave their shareholders bigger return for their investments? It was a win-win situation, The Minolta camera mount would be history if it wasn't for Sony.

Looks like a desperate effort on behalf of Olympus to clean up its name after their recent financial scandal. I was disappointed with the EPL2 to the point that I have stayed away from other Olympus products. This new camera is going to have to be spectacular for me to trust Olympus again.

I cannot wait to see this thing. I don't think there is or should be any doubt it will have a 4/3 sensor. What sense would it make to release a new camera that has no lenses made for it? It will be micro mount and with the standard 4/3 adapter I think it will work just as well as an E-5 with the 4/3 lenses. (I hope and think this was their goal) I think Olympus realized they could not make the true m 4/3 bodies focus the larger lenses so they bumped up the body size to make it all work, two systems in one. This way they do not leave us 4/3 users high and dry. This just might be the camera I had hoped the m4/3's would be. We shall see.

We obviously already can use our OM mount lenses on the 4/3 and m4/3 bodies (as well as on other compact interchangeable lens cameras) with suitable adapters. I fully expect that any new model from Olympus would be a m4/3 camera (possibly a regular 4/3). I think it is extremely unlikely that they would introduce a third digital mount arrangement, requiring yet another line of digital lenses.

if Olympus and Sony is forming some kind of partnarship, Olympus is getting the sensor from Sony... And Sony do not make any 4/3 sensor, but they do have a 24mp ready to ship... Sony do not care to have this just for themselves, since Nikon also has this. it is still possible to have a ff om-d! I have my finger crossed ! my 21 f2, 50 f2 Marco, 24 shift, 90 f2... 28 f2 can finally be on a OM body again.

Olympus and Sony aren't partners yet, and the OM-D is likely to be announced soon. It has been known for some time that Olympus is working on a weather-sealed pro/semi-pro mirrorless camera, and there's no reason to think it won't have a 4/3 sensor.

Yeah, but you and how many other people would actually buy such a product? There's just not enough of a market to support that kind of product. If they did offer such a camera, it would sell in such low volumes that they would have to jack up the price to near Leica M levels! Even in its heyday, the OM system was still a rather small part of the SLR market, even though it was highly admired...and it became an even smaller part of the market once AF arrived. In today's market, with even fewer people still even owning any OM lenses, and most people expecting good AF performance, it would be a very small niche product. Best case scenario, it would probably be at least as expensive as a 5D MKII or D700, but without all system advantages of the 5D MKII or D700. It's good to dream, but a FF manual focus OM-D in today's market would be more of a novelty than a true contender for people's hard earned money.

A digital OM-1 would be interesting, especially if they kept the same lens mounts , manual(ish), and gave it a distressed body to make it look thirty years old!

I wonder what people would think of a camera that only used the battery for sensor and light meter? We have become so dependent on the auto everything of modern camera, that this would be a cool idea. . . . . . or not!

From what I've read, it'll be m4/3.... It's a shame really. They shouldn't pull the OM card unless they have a FF camera with all the features OM is known for: multi-spot metering, aperture ring, extremely large and bright OVF, legendary lens line-up. They used Pen name for the digital version because original film Pen is half-frame.... OM is FF, so why put the name on a crop sensor? OM is very pro oriented also. Auto everything people won't like it. OM is about "creative automation" not auto everything. It's not a P&S camera, like 4/3..., it's for people who know what they're doing.

4/3 lenses are better than even OM's legendary lenses in their days..., and are built on the knowledge they got from OM's Series 2 lenses (some of the world's sharpest, rent an SHG lens & see). It's shame Olympus abandoned it for an inferior system. My E-620 produces FAR better result than digital Pen cameras despite the sensor is 1-2 generation older. That tells you how important is the lens.

"OM" does not necessarily mean "FF". It means different things to different people. And I wouldn't really say that "OM is very pro oriented." I'd say that work-a-day pros were the first ones to defect from OM when the state-of-the-art in cameras became AF. Also, for many people, OM means "OM-2000", which was marketed as the go-to beginner's student camera.

The irony is that this new (supposedly) m4/3 OM-D will probably be more "pro oriented" than the original OM cameras were: fast AF, very high resolution, advanced image stabilization, weather sealed, very high ISO...

"Its ISO range will be from 200 to 25,600, have a 610,000 pixel OLED swivel 3-inch screen, an in-built electronic viewfinder with 1.44 million dots slap bang in the middle of the casing (like on the old, analogue OM models), feature a five-axis image stabiliser, and fast auto focus and 3D tracking."

OM-1 is what National Geographic and many other professionals use for many reasons. If you're interested in Olympus history, please do feel free to read on it. OM-2000 is Cosina-made and most people don't consider that OM.

Lens collection is what made OM system legendary. Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro was the sharpest 50mm ever made before the digital version of it for 4/3 dethroned it. Ironically some of the best lenses Olympus ever made was after its decline, as an attempt to recapture the market. OM mount 50mm f/2 macro mentioned is one, most 4/3 SHG lenses are easily sharper than that one even. That 50mm f/2 macro was designed using computer aided design when other companies were still using trial-and-error method.... Olympus pioneered a lot of things. Some of the world's fastest lenses of their time were/are Olympus (just google it). Competitors usually just put them down and say what's the point of a 24mm f/2? or LiveView on DSLR? or 4/3 sensor too small, etc..

Pros uses a tripod, not high ISO. High ISO is for emergency use and some other special use, not the the solution to everything. Obviously you have never shot film. People prefer low ISO films or shoot low ISO on digital for good reasons. Better detail, better grain/less noise, better tone, more saturated color, you name it. Wedding photogs needs high ISO because of their situation.... But everyone knows when possible use the lowest ISO setting.

Pros look for very different things than what an amateur look for. The feature set you mentioned are what marketers tell you, stats.... easy to compare. I shot Olympus for a long time and what I look for? Dust reduction, quick access to mirror lock up, precise meter/WB, button placement, battery life. Basically stuff that makes the camera work, so the photog don't have to think. Non-quantifiable, hard to market stuff. So far only Olympus's LiveView implementation works.

citizenlouie-- "Pros use a tripod, not high ISO"!?!?! LOL. Clearly, you are woefully out of touch with what we pros are using-- and expecting-- these days. High performance high ISO is basically *expected* in any pro-level camera these days. Why? Because we can't be limited by cumbersome tripods and slow shutter speeds! We need to be able to shoot regardless of the lighting conditions! Sorry, but you are simply out of touch with how pros shoot these days. We're not standing around with tripods and plunger-style cable releases, shooting Provia 100 with shutter speeds of 1/30s and mirror lock-up. We want fast, accurate AF, and high quality high ISO. Just take a look at the latest Canon 1DX and Nikon D4. They are all about fast AF and superb high ISO! You're living in the past, pal.

I assume you're a wedding photog, then your use of ISO is legitimate. And ISO can also be used for DoF control. For people who shoot landscape and inanimate subjects, putting a camera on a tripod, turning off IS and turning on mirror lock up will guarantee you the sharpest photo possible, which is not as important to wedding photos, because the capturing the moment is more important.

By turning ISO up (or down) from the sensor's native ISO (please learn your camera's native ISO, it's not always the lowest ISO) can reverse everything you gain from using a remote shutter release (not cable release, as it could create shake), mirror lock up and turn IS off, even by as little as 1/3 of a stop. It all depends on your use. Weigh whether the increased noise is acceptable to you (and your clients) or not. Don't say all pros use high ISO, because it isn't true. But I do admit high ISO performance has improved, and it's always welcome for flexibility reason.

citizenlouie, you're so right when you say pros use tripods, not high ISO. I wrote that elsewhere here at dpreview and some morons tried to ridicule my words. One also found odd to use narrow apertures under low light in the same circumstances. There are people here who don't know the first things about photography, but that doesn't keep them from proudly displaying their ignorance. (This is not intended to criticise anyone in particular.)About the OM lenses: bang on! I have two, which I use very often on my E-P1 through MF-2 adapter. One of them is the 50mm/f1.4. This may be the best lens I'll ever own. Ultra-sharp, high build quality standards, compact and with depth of field to die for.

I'm not entirely sure that's the purpose of the alliance. If I were Sony, I would purchase Olympus for accessing Olympus patents on lenses. Sony bought Minolta for credential into DSLR market, but Minolta was no Olympus. Most Olympus lenses design are made in-house (instead of base off German formula). Minolta had alliance with Leica and had some expertise learned from that alliance. If Sony/Olympus alliance is made, Sony would have world-class lens technology, which Olympus couldn't trump Nikon because of money issue, not because Olympus isn't capable. FYI, Olympus not only is the world's leader in endoscope, but Olympus invented endoscope (inventor of the endoscope asked Olympus to fund it so the world's first endoscope was made under Olympus name). Olympus to Japan is like HP or IBM is to the US. One of the largest patent holders in Japan if not in the world. The fall of an innovation giant would be an unthinkable event. Speaking of which, someone please save Kodak!

Trouble with the MF-2 is that it doesn't automate the diaphragm, so unless you're shooting wide open, you have to either focus with the lens stopped down (which is less accurate) or focus wide open and risk accidentally turning the lens when you reset the diaphragm. And the E-620, at least, lacks the neat focusing aids found in several of the OM focusing screens.

I've been waiting for this. I still own and use OM-1n, OM-2S, OMPC (a.k.a OM40), a really nice late s/n Zuiko 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/3.5 macro, 24mm f/2.8, etc.. A digital OM body that could make full-frame use of these great lenses is on its way? Sign me up!

We loved this camera when it came out in the 70's and ended up with the OM2 black versions. We have been onto olympus for years to reproduce their classic OM1n and OM2n as a digital camera as it has classic appeal. Why not, Leica have similar with their range. The earlier OM1n/OM2n have a triangular prism viewed from the front which makes it look aesthetically compact and streamlined. Only recently purchased a mint condition one to shoot film and scan so we are pleased with the news, it is hoped that they do go for the smaller one mentioned at not the OM3 + they start to get ugly! ; )

OM3 and OM4 have a lot of Canon look to it. Oh, is that what you mean? ;-)

Joke aside, if you can look beyond aesthetic issue (which I don't find my OM 4T all that ugly and I love the LED meter inside OVF, so much better than Nikon's) OM3(T) and OM4(T) (practically the same camera beside the shutter mechanism) are very capable cameras. World's first full-synchro flash, Olympus F280, can only be used on OM 3T and OM 4T. It took ten years for Canon to come up with the world's second....

I doubt it'll be cheap to produce. Titanium versions of OM cameras are expensive enough Olympus raised the price and users protested.... Today, there are no cameras with titanium plates because the cost to built them probably is higher than what you pay for an OM 4T on eBay....

I also doubt they'll able to make it that'll live up to OM name.... Not an easy task to beat. OM 1 was the world's smallest 35mm SLR camera when it was launched in 1971 when SLRs were huge. They did it without making viewfinder smaller nor dimmer, without miniaturization of buttons and control so photogs can treat them like pro cameras without compromise. All lenses issued since inception were legendary from very beginning: extremely small without optical compromise, and some of the world's fastest lenses back in 1971, all retro-focus design, and most of them are either 49mm or 55mm filter thread. So many design constraints and they're still nicknamed Leica killers. Tough act to follow.

Stating that "This Olympus OM digital camera already exists in two versions, actually. It is called Fujfilm X100 and Fujifilm X-Pro1"... is neither here nor there because Oly doesn't make the X100 or X-Pro1, so therefore don't profit from them. Obviously, they'll want to make their *own* versions of these cameras that use their *own" lenses! What you've stated is akin to saying that Nikon doesn't need to make any FF DSLRs because Canon already does! LOL.

The fact that Olympus anounced a weather sealed 12-50mm m4/3 lens tells me that Olympus is working on a MFT Pro camera. Maybe they will borrow from the famous OM design. Probably using the aproved Panasonic 16MP sensor and a good EVF in a sturdy, weathersealed body. I would like that.

Whatever Oly produces, you just know that people will complain to high heaven. People will complain that it's not full frame. People will complain that it doesn't have a ginormous optical viewfinder. People will complain that it doesn't use button batteries. People will complain that it doesn't have a classic split-prism focusing screen. People will complain that it doesn't have match needle metering. People will complain that it isn't an all-manual focus camera, while simultaneously complaining that its auto focus isn't fast enough. And on and on it will go. Face it, no matter what they introduce, people will hate it. Oh, the joy of the internet! LOL.

While it's true that you can't please everyone, and people will always complain, some models (no matter who made them) will achieve a general level of respect, while others will earn the reverse. Consider automobiles. While not perfect, the '57 Chev is universally admired, the Chevette not so much, yet you can find people who loved their Chevette, and others who didn't like the '57 Chev.

I am sure there were people who found fault with the OM-1 and OM-2, and many people who preferred other brands, but almost everyone respects them as good quality well designed and well-rounded instruments. The same could not be said for the E-330. While many learned to love it - me included – quite a few wouldn't give it a second thought, and for good reason; despite its overall build quality, reliability and unique design, the viewfinder really did suck, as did low light autofocus. That's just the way it was. Would I trade mine? Nope, but an all round winner, it was not.

I always find Olympus users as a whole tend to complain more than Canon/Nikon users though the cameras are not worse. It looks like Canonikon people are easier to please. I've never found 4/3 sensor is a limitation when compared to APS-C size sensor, but people keep complaining about it. Compared with FF, yes, there are disadvantages, but it has to do with DoF, not IQ. APS-C and 4/3 sensor size are too close to induce such big fuss most people are getting.... Most features Sony NEX-7 "introduced," like the real-time WB check on LiveView? E-620 already have it (I believe it's E-30 that introduced it, so it's an even older tech than you think). Olympus is just stinky at marketing. So many features are already there, but most users don't even know they exist before they sold their cameras.... I still laugh when people say Olympus's features are "buried in menu." Those people probably have never used Super Control Panel....

You wouldn't say that if you enlarged up 20 x 30 or beyond and shoot in extremely low light. Disclaimer: I own a D3s and I started in digital photography with Olympus. I had an E-30 and an E-3...both fine cameras and the quality of the Zuiko lenses (I had the 14-54, the 12-60, the 50-200, and the 9-18) is equal to or better than any of their competition. But, facts are facts; the 4/3 sensor cannot compete with the 24 x 36 sensor under certain conditions and even has issues compared to APS-C under those conditions.

While I have never enlarged my photo 20x30, I have enlarged them to 16x20. I used E-620, btw. The 12MP is rated 11x14 @ 300dpi, so I usually am afraid of going beyond that size. But 16x20 works fine without loss of detail. Yes, the scene is also low light, maybe not pitch dark, but it was in woods shot on a tripod. Currently I turn my dpi rating to 4200dpi, but I believe the said shot was shot at 1200dpi and I see no problem and usually my LR's NR is fixed at 2 for both types of NR for sharpest photos. Remember you must turn AA setting to off or at least low for acceptable IQ.

Yes, 24x36 FF is better under certain circumstance, but same can be said for smaller sensor (morer DoF at 4/3's best aperture @ f/5.6). I do know 4/3's shortcomings so I shoot my photos around them. I can see why wedding photogs should use FF and 4/3 is no competition. I do enlarge usually to squarer formats (8x10 or 11x14) so 4/3 allows me to waste less pixels and easier compo for those formats.

The OM System was quite remarkable for its time. Excellent design and engineering made the first cameras instant classics. I think many of us who bought into the 4/3rds system did so because we hoped to see similar excellence expressed there. While 4/3rds produced some good cameras, none of the units I owned could really be called instant classics in the way the OM-1 could. In every case, the recipe was missing a critical ingredient - dark viewfinder, inefficient auto-focus, or a sensor that just wasn't quite up to the competition despite an excellent jPeg engine.

If Olympus does this digital OM right - making sure all the ingredients are there - as it did with the original OM, it could save the division. If it again fails to deliver on some critical aspect required by an exceptional camera today, while playing on history, it could forever tarnish the OM name and finish the division. Big gamble!

The Recipe - Big sensor, big viewfinder, in a small reliable and capable camera.

I just bought an OM1 with a almost perfect 50 mm f1.4 and using the lense on a Panasonic G1. and what a find. Guys look in cupboard, there might be hidden treasures. The lense works perfectly on the G1. Have you ever tried to control the DOF with autofocus lenses. Now it's like in the "olden"" days, manual focus and control DOF with the manual aperture. I am already looking for a OM macro and a 100 lense to buy.

Glory days of the 70s and 80s? Scoop up any patents and junk the brand. Time to move on. Anything else is an exercise in futility. Just how many Sony sensor fitted cameras will the amateur market support?

The 25 and 30 year olds who used Olys in their heyday are in their 50s and 60s now. Enthusiast or not just how many camera kits will these guys buy in a bad economy ?

I totally agree. Olympus makes excellent cameras but they need a marquis model the way some auto-makers need a Formula One or rally car racer - to build interest in what actually represents their bread an butter, the family car. And for those who want the lost leader, so much the better. I know I'd want one. Canon and Nikon understand this concept all too well.

I want a OM-4Td.That was a sweet camera.It alowed you to take multiple highlights and shadows spot readings.An I hope they comeback with there 2CDS metering, faicing 18% gray scale Film plane.If they do I'm going for it.

i still have mine, 25 years later, and it's still ticking. If Oly found a way to develop this same size camera with a FF sensor Truepic x processor and fully compatible with all my stellar OM & 4/3 ZD pro glass, i'd be first in line, damn the costs.

Or another way to look at it: the E-5's replacement. Which means I can get E-5s at fire-sale prices to last me until I die.

After switching to Nikon because there was no Oly digital product two years after its announcement, I had occasion to go back and use my beloved OM4T again and could not believe how flimsy and crude it felt after using the D100 for a while. As for a new camera lines from Olympus, well, been there, done that. It is just a parade of discontinued equipment with no respect for customers shown by providing a transition. OM gone with no development for years except raising the price and the company saying the lenses will not work with digital. E series gone. PEN development lagging way behind Panasonic. Corrupt corporate officers looting millions from the company and treating the whistle blower badly. Want to bet it will have a new mount and none of your lenses will work?

I'm in the same boat - had an OM1MD which I loved for its size and functionality - 'upgraded' to a OM2sp which was rubbish compared to the orginal OM2. Ended up feeling that Oly had lost the plot with serious cameras and switched to Nikon that was great but big - now with Panasonic 4/3 and really enjoying it but the thought of an OM digital is really appealing.Wonder if Panasonic is waiting for this before they release the GH3? That'd be a tough decision although I still am a bit tainted by how badly Olympus dumped the serious OM line years back

fivedock- *Every* company dumped manual focus. It wasn't just Olympus that did it. In fact, Oly was one of the last companies to keep their manual focus system going, long after all the other SLR companies had moved to AF. Heck, Oly didn't even offer an AF SLR system until they got into DSLRs! It just goes to show: you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. People hate Oly for stubbornly sticking with OM for so long, and people hate Oly for not sticking with OM long enough!!! They can't win.

KyoshiNikon, so does Canon. But that's certainly not what their systems are about. They are basically AF systems. Yet few if any people feel "a bit tainted" that all these companies moved to AF. People who are still upset over the move to AF should really get over it.

Somehow, the ergonomics of SLRs never got better after the classic pre-autofocus period. So many greats. All the OM 1, 2, and 4. Nikon FM2 and FE2. These were Fuji X100 SLRs. Simple, direct control. I miss those days, and I will never sell my Nikon FM2 bodies.

I think we have a lot of rosy nostalgia going on here. I used an FE2 back in the day, but I don't miss the days of grip-less blocky cameras. Today's ergonomically molded and contoured bodies are much more comfortable to use over long periods of time, especially with today's large lenses. If I had to go back to using an FE2 for an all-day wedding shoot, I'd probably come home with hand blisters.

I've always wished they could bring back the old XA range - the design was superb, small enough to fit in a pocket, pretty tough, lots of space on the back for a screen, lovely sharp lenses. A kind of digital XA would make a bit more sense. The OM's big draw was clever flash automation and small size, which aren't exceptional any more. That, and the "manual everything" philosophy of the OM-1, which would be odd in the digital world.

Having said that, the old OM lenses tend to be lovely performers on my Canon 5D, especially the wides, which are tiny and sharp.

It is cool, I like the look and feel of OM as I liked it in the past, but I think Olympus will need more than just form factor and old look at this time and date.

There are many decent DSLR cameras out there with a small sensor which have better electronics than the old OM series ever had. If Oly at least provides fast and sharp lenses (f1.8 or faster) then there is some incentive, but even then, small sensor area is getting crowded..

They should probably release a full-frame sensor camera in OM body. That would be something new. With a small sensor it is nothing new really other than a cool look.

My Dad had two OM-1 cameras that I grew up using. He had his own dark room where I would help him develop photos as a kid. I loved the Zuikio lenses. The first camera that I bought was an Olympus OM-PC (OM-40). You could put the OM cameras through just about anything. It was also a great travel camera as it was light and compact.

I would love to see the OM series revived. I can only hope that Olympus uses the APS-C sensor and not the 4/3 system. However, Olympus has invested a lot of time and money into 4/3 so I am likely to be disappointed.

If Olympus does come out with the OM, keeps it a similar form factor and weight as the original OM cameras, and uses APS-C sensors then they will have another customer, even if I don't need another camera. I'd even end up buying one for my Dad, if for no other reason than nostalgia.

That would be a disastrous mistake, thereby having no lens fitting to the camera at all. Using MFT instead, you already at the launch can use all 27 MFT lenses + all the classical FT lenses via adapter.

For sure MFT make sense, but what a retro style camera will bring anything new to the mft world?? I mean what is the value? I would love simply that they take a OM1 put a sensor(full frame) in it, full manual :) That way keep the cost low... I don't know but if they do that, it will be crazy!!!

petrocan- the value is an integrated viewfinder (Olympus still doesn't have an m4/3 body that has an integrated EVF), physical control knobs and dials (which are easier to use than on-screen controls)...and don't under-estimate the power of aesthetic appeal. All these three things, combined, make for a very attractive package. Plus, as someone who currently uses an E-PM1, I can definitely tell you that its smooth, featureless body doesn't handle very well. I would love to have a textured OM-style body with physical controls. It would handle so much better. People seem to under-estimate the importance of how a camera feels and handles these days. Everyone is so obsessed about sensor size, sensor noise, and megapixels, that they forget about the importance of camera handling and camera feel.

Regarding the photo above, DPReview staff might not know this but it's not the OM-4 that's fondly remembered (it was a bit trouble-prone and a battery eater). The last and arguably best of the OMs was the OM-4T (in US, OM-4Ti). Mine is still going, but they were rather expensive and obviously lacked AF so that was the end of the line. It's worth remembering that the beauty of the OM concept was a "full sized" "sensor" but in a smaller body. A smaller sensor in a smaller body might work fine but it doesn't sound like much of a breakthrough.

I hate rumor advertising. Please just tell the specs and sell the camera. In 9 times out of 10, the actual revelation of the actual camera is a disappointment. What genius came up with the bright idea with marketing by disappointment?

Olympus users have long wanted to see Olympus return to their glory days during the 1970's-80's when they innovated and revolutionized cameras. Today Oly is known more for its late entry, copy-catism and poor marketing especially in the US.

I believe the OM-D is Olympus' last and best chance to re-establish itself as a leader. Clearly the timing of this release is excellent since the market is infatuated with retro-looking bodies. Oly's products have always been good but the biggest issue is image quality especially at higher ISO's. I purchased my E-3 because of the in-body image stabilization and to leverage my investment in older Zuiko OM glass. It's an amazing camera but for high ISO, it clearly falls behind Canon and Nikon. If the OM-D can shoot well in low light situations, I think it will be accepted in the market.

My biggest fear is that if this camera is a smash, Oly will "rest on its laurels" like it did on the original OM series. Innovation is the key to success.

i think olympus has done quite a lot of innovation; sensor cleaning, live view, mirrorless, in body I.s. and a swivel screen on an slr were all quite innovative. Their ep2 and were well received by the reviewers.. their glass is superb too. Their evf on the pen cameras too are very good. True olympus is not as big a player as the other two but in its own right, I believe it has been quite consistent with a good line up of products.

Anyone expecting or hoping for something other than a Micro Four Thirds camera is going to be disappointed. If you're lucky, you might get a new-and-improved focusing system that works well with adapted Four Thirds lenses.

My evidence: the new Oly 12-50/f3.5-6.3 Micro Four Thirds zoom. Kit-lens specs, but not yet offered as a kit lens. Weather-sealed, but there is as yet no weather-sealed body to go with it.

Put it all together, and Oly is clearly teasing a new weather-sealed m43 body.

And if you're holding out hope for 24x36mm sensor, look at the expected price and then go look at the price of existing "FF" bodies. Those start at roughly twice the price.

"Based on OM" means "designed to look like an OM" and "called OM"... but not OM mount.

A few years back I used both the OM1 and 2, they were great cameras, good build quality and the lenses were superb.Looking at the recent release of the Fuji cameras including the X-Pro1 there seems to be a return to the "retro" look by that manufacturer so it gets you wandering if Olympus will recreate a certain look if they do release a new camera with the OM logo on it.Their Pen range of cameras echo the earlier cameras with that designation but personally I think they should have done what Fuji did with their X-100 and X-10 and then bring out a bigger interchangeable lens camera al-la X-Pro1.

I do understand the need for smaller and lighter cameras to make it easy on the old shoulders but in some cases the manufacturers have gone too far.Again looking at the X-Pro1, Fuji seem to have the balance right ( style wise they seem to have looked at the Leica M series as a guide ) The lens quality and comfort in holding the camera are the main points I look for